Postmodernism anybody?

[Newme]

"So, you've grown disgusted with Mormonism. May we offer you Postmodernism?"
Subconsciously this seems to be a trend.
What do you think?

"By the 1970s it was evident that game was up — the postmodernist Marxist just basically pulled a sleight of hand and said OK if it’s not the poor against the rich it’s the oppressed against the oppressor. We’ll just redivide the subpopulations in ways that make our our philosophy continue in its movement forward. And that’s where we are now. And so for the post-modernists the world is a Hobbesian battleground of identity groups. They do not communicate with one another because they can’t — all there is is a struggle for power.
They believe that logic is part of the process by which the patriarchal institutions of the West continue to dominate and to justify their dominance. They don’t believe in dialogue. The root word of dialogue is Logos. Again they don’t believe that people of good will can come to consensus through the exchange of ideas. They believe that notion is part of the philosophical substructure and practices of the dominant culture. So the reason they don’t let people who they don’t agree with speak on campuses is because they don’t agree with letting people speak. You see it’s not part of the ethos.”

"They regard that if you’re in one power group and I’m in another — the idea that we can step out of that group, engage in a dialogue, have our worlds meet and produce some sort of understanding — no that’s part of your your oppressive patriarchal game — that whole idea is part of your game. So if I even engage in the dialogue and playing your game you win.
People don’t understand that postmodernism is a complete assault on... everything that’s been established since the Enlightenment — rationality - empiricism — science. Everything. Clarity of mind, dialogue. The idea of the individual." - Jordan Peterson

[Very few people consciously realise that they are ‘mouthpieces for the value system of a dead philosopher.]

https://medium.com/perspectiva-institut ... f43c24672f

[LSOF]

What is "postmodernism"? As used by conservative types, the word seems little more than a slur. The quoted Peterson linked it up with Marxism, which is little more than an economic and historical theory maintaining that history is driven by class struggle and that the ideal society is a stateless, moneyless one with all property held in common. Elsewhere Peterson links "postmodernism" up with the topical conservative bugbear of "identity politics", saying that "We'll just redivide the subpopulations [...] the world is a Hobbesian battleground of identity groups [...] all there is is a struggle for power."

"Postmodernism" is very ill-defined, but Peterson connects both "identity politics" and Marxism, as well as "SJW's" to it. (I grant he never uses the initialism, because it would make him look like a moron. Instead, he alludes to an alleged meme that logic is used by the "patriarchal institutions of the West" and is an "oppressive patriarchal game", which I have never seen in the wild. It is a stereotypical trait of the "SJW" to connect everything she dislikes, sometimes including logic itself, to patriarchy.) The term "postmodernism" seems to be a kitchen sink for anything he dislikes.

The closest analogue I can find for "postmodernism" as used here is "cultural Marxism", a risible anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. I am not alleging that Peterson is an anti-Semite, only that his ideas seem to be descended from anti-Semitic rubbish. "Cultural Marxists" have been accused of "degeneracy" (that is, changes in society) for decades by far-right types.

In conclusion, I find that "postmodernism" is a silly far-right conspiracy theory, and these words by Peterson are hardly worth the magnetized rust on which they are recorded.

[Newme]

LOSF,
Thanks for your reply.
Many people are tired of the censorship & illogical distortions that pervades media & politics. Peterson isn't the 1st nor only one, though he's researched and worked in sociology for many years.

https://youtu.be/OqzN0nqiJyQ

https://youtu.be/IFNNHvnprg4 (Beware & please excuse cussing)

*Note both of the above are Jewish.
Also realize that although I agree on many issues with each of these, there are some matters with which I disagree. And I'm fine with that. I can still appreciate truth when I find it, even when the person saying it isn't completely aligned with my beliefs. Still, I cannot tell you how refreshing and encouraging they have been to me & many others, to have the guts to state the obvious even if it upsets some who struggle with facts.

If you think it's "conspiracy theory" - explain exactly why.
Tell me what qualities associated to post modernism listed are factually inaccurate.

Otherwise you're proving the assertion that post modernism involves logical fallacies like ad hominem & inability or refusal to engage in logical discussion. I really don't like labels and other nonsense adhered to in the allegience to political correctness. Still, it's kind of nice to put a name to the insanity I see sometimes when people think that if the church is flawed, they must go to the perceived opposite extreme, while still disrespecting unbelievers. It may be "Preference qualification" - going along with a herd is easier than getting called names, risking career opportunities etc.

Why is it that many here were strong conservatives and then suddenly they're liberal?
I understand faith crisis change perspectives, but for me at least, I haven't tossed out everything I previously believed. I went through everything- and continued to believe what makes sense - like logic, living within budget, respect to life and children's inherent right to life (not be killed via abortion), freedom of speech, etc. Yet, I also am cautious & skeptical of war involvement, I feel compassion for immigrants (which many of our ancestors were) & recycling & caring for the environment just make sense. It doesn't have to be one or the other group thought. But it seems that current liberal/postmodernism ideologies teach it must be this or that - categorizing people by race, gender, sexuality, politics - dividing our country.

[Mormorrisey]

Why is it that many here were strong conservatives and then suddenly they're liberal?

Well, given that I'm Canadian and rather commie pinko to begin with, I'm a big fan of postmodernist thought, and I have been for a long time. I'm not sure why you think that postmodernism as an ideology shuts down enlightenment thinking. On the contrary, done right, postmodernism can simply help one to go beyond empiricism and try to understand the governing structures that society employs to not just "keep people in line," but for societies to function period. These structures aren't inherently evil, but I would agree with Foucault et al that they are authoritarian in nature. In fact, postmodern thought processes are what helped me critically analyze what it is that I disliked about the church. The postmodernism that Peterson describes here is more of an attack on liberals in general, and is not the postmodernism I employed in my academic work. Rather the opposite; it has broadened my horizons and helped me to understand all sorts of ideologies, governing structures and epistemologies. Now, I'm sure that some "liberals" use the ideology to shut down discussion, just like conservatives can do with their views. Both sides can employ militant ideologies as "discussion stoppers," and that is a condition that affects liberals and conservatives in equal measure in countries across the globe.

It doesn't have to be one or the other group thought. But it seems that current liberal/postmodernism ideologies teach it must be this or that - categorizing people by race, gender, sexuality, politics - dividing our country.

To me, this is not postmodernism AT ALL. In my understanding, postmodernists want to go beyond the categories of race, gender or sexuality; these identities are fluid and are not fixed in time or space, so true postmodernists should scrupulously AVOID categorizing individuals in this fashion. That is why third-wave feminism is so fascinating; it goes WAAAY beyond demanding an end to traditional gender roles, and calls for recognizing the struggles of gender as a social construction. So the exact opposite of what you are saying here. If liberals categorize identities, I can accept that as a critique; but postmodernists do not. In fact, it seems to me that those on the right can also categorize people; for example, those who use the #Trad Life want a return to traditional gender/sexual roles, which is not liberal at all. Isn't that categorizing people by specific gender identities?

But an interesting discussion.

[Newme]

Why is it that many here were strong conservatives and then suddenly they're liberal?

Well, given that I'm Canadian and rather commie pinko to begin with, I'm a big fan of postmodernist thought, and I have been for a long time. I'm not sure why you think that postmodernism as an ideology shuts down enlightenment thinking. On the contrary, done right, postmodernism can simply help one to go beyond empiricism and try to understand the governing structures that society employs to not just "keep people in line," but for societies to function period. These structures aren't inherently evil, but I would agree with Foucault et al that they are authoritarian in nature. In fact, postmodern thought processes are what helped me critically analyze what it is that I disliked about the church. The postmodernism that Peterson describes here is more of an attack on liberals in general, and is not the postmodernism I employed in my academic work. Rather the opposite; it has broadened my horizons and helped me to understand all sorts of ideologies, governing structures and epistemologies. Now, I'm sure that some "liberals" use the ideology to shut down discussion, just like conservatives can do with their views. Both sides can employ militant ideologies as "discussion stoppers," and that is a condition that affects liberals and conservatives in equal measure in countries across the globe.

It doesn't have to be one or the other group thought. But it seems that current liberal/postmodernism ideologies teach it must be this or that - categorizing people by race, gender, sexuality, politics - dividing our country.

To me, this is not postmodernism AT ALL. In my understanding, postmodernists want to go beyond the categories of race, gender or sexuality; these identities are fluid and are not fixed in time or space, so true postmodernists should scrupulously AVOID categorizing individuals in this fashion. That is why third-wave feminism is so fascinating; it goes WAAAY beyond demanding an end to traditional gender roles, and calls for recognizing the struggles of gender as a social construction. So the exact opposite of what you are saying here. If liberals categorize identities, I can accept that as a critique; but postmodernists do not. In fact, it seems to me that those on the right can also categorize people; for example, those who use the #Trad Life want a return to traditional gender/sexual roles, which is not liberal at all. Isn't that categorizing people by specific gender identities?

But an interesting discussion.

Thanks Mormorrisey.
Many years ago, postmodernism and liberalism began inspiring critical thinking, exploring various ideologies and epistemologies etc.... but with time, it/liberalism has indeed become anti-discussion. I've seen it over and over in media and especially college campuses and in some work-places. Sure, you can say whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody (which is emotional reasoning logical fallacy) and is "politically correct." If you, ie: state inconvenient FACTS of medical/physiological differences between men and women - many, even liberal journalists freak out and demand it be censored as "hate speech."

In theory - or ideally, postmodernism/classic liberalism is about going beyond identity politics - but in practice - it is using "equality" as a way to say, "OMG! Look! It's not completely 100% fair for this little minority group and this one! Hate speech!! Censor! Do whatever you can to favor those poor little guys who are so oppressed!" In reality, the only current oppression is primarily with African Americans - and often it is because of traditions/no fathers in the home etc - not so much as racial discrimination, though media would have us believe so. I'm not saying there is no racial profiling - I've seen it myself - with my ex, but if the liberal media would look at statistical facts - and report without manipulative slants, we'd see a very different picture than what is currently being reported.

Emotions rule, logic is out - with current postmodernism/liberalism. If you say something logically and factually true - it is less important than if it offends someone. Thus, freedom of speech is being limited in favor of catering to people who struggle with facts. And then, when government gets involved, as it has, in silencing speech that some happen to not like, it becomes a bit tyrannical. And when tyranny is in power, it gets uglier and uglier.

Current Liberalism/Postmodernism does not demonstrate critical thinking - more like the opposite.
It regularly entertains these logical fallacies:

• Ad homeniem attack (Name calling)
  Emotional reasoning (& related: argumentum ad misericordiam - using pity as a basis of arguing)
  Fallacy of fairness
  Polarized/All-or-Nothing thinking/False Dichotomy
  Red Hering - changing the subject when they don't have a rebuttal
  Post hoc ergo propter hoc & Jumping to conclusions
  Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to Popularity)

It's true that others engage in these logical fallacies (especially in religious groups), but I've never seen any group engage in them as much as current liberals do.

[oliver_denom]

The core of Peterson's critique of postmodernism is that any system which elevates the ideology above the individual is going to lead to a bad result, and that many things argued to be changeable cultural artifacts are actually grounded in human psychology and evolution. He rejects the idea that equality or justice can be achieved by engineering the way people speak or pretending that foundational human behaviors have no mooring in reality. Peterson doesn't argue that postmodernism is incorrect about all things, but specifically the areas where traditional structures are being knocked down for the purpose of constructing an ideology, based on the premise that those institutions are of relative verses absolute significance.

I would say his views are traditionally conservative, but he arrives there in an interesting way through a Jungian analysis of the world. Culture, religion, myth, and representation are more than just made up nonsense in order to keep people under control, they are representations of the psyche. They have evolved over time to help humanity deal with the business of survival, and just going after them willy-nilly with a set of pinking shears is likely to lead to a bad end, because the world is chaos and those structures are what keeps it at bay. People who uproot those fundamental elements of order get met with catastrophe, like the myth of the flood, both on the individual level and the collective.

This is his critique of a certain type of liberalism which he believes to be overstepping boundaries. However, I think it should be said that this ends up being his focus only because of the current controversy he's mixed up with. He argues that a strong pull to the left unravels the bonds of society, but also that a strong pull to the right leads to totalitarianism. Many people on the self described alt-right who take him up as an intellectual hero would quickly find that his way of thinking condemns nearly all of their agenda.

But really, his is not a political philosophy, even though it may inform some political thought. He's more about understanding the structures within society as they exist, how they function, and how they can work or become broken in relation to human well being. Individuals need to inhabit their own hero myth to become triumphant and complete. Many of his critiques center around ways in which modern society makes embodying that mythos difficult, like not taking religion seriously, or behaving in ways which are contrary to god (meaning our inner conscience).

[oliver_denom]

Current Liberalism/Postmodernism does not demonstrate critical thinking - more like the opposite.
It regularly entertains these logical fallacies:

• Ad homeniem attack (Name calling)
  Emotional reasoning (& related: argumentum ad misericordiam - using pity as a basis of arguing)
  Fallacy of fairness
  Polarized/All-or-Nothing thinking/False Dichotomy
  Red Hering - changing the subject when they don't have a rebuttal
  Post hoc ergo propter hoc & Jumping to conclusions
  Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to Popularity)

It's true that others engage in these logical fallacies (especially in religious groups), but I've never seen any group engage in them as much as current liberals do.

This is a selection bias. For example, I'm a self described liberal and work very hard at critical thinking. You can't take an unrepresentative sample and then generalize based on a handful of conversations. If you're interested in the intellectual roots of postmodernism, then you should read the foundational works of postmodernist intellectuals. Most people aren't interested in understanding an opposing view, they just want to be right, and that leads to mental errors. If you look, then you can find plenty of people who are interested in ideas.

[Newme]

Current Liberalism/Postmodernism does not demonstrate critical thinking - more like the opposite.
It regularly entertains these logical fallacies:

• Ad homeniem attack (Name calling)
  Emotional reasoning (& related: argumentum ad misericordiam - using pity as a basis of arguing)
  Fallacy of fairness
  Polarized/All-or-Nothing thinking/False Dichotomy
  Red Hering - changing the subject when they don't have a rebuttal
  Post hoc ergo propter hoc & Jumping to conclusions
  Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to Popularity)

It's true that others engage in these logical fallacies (especially in religious groups), but I've never seen any group engage in them as much as current liberals do.

This is a selection bias. For example, I'm a self described liberal and work very hard at critical thinking. You can't take an unrepresentative sample and then generalize based on a handful of conversations. If you're interested in the intellectual roots of postmodernism, then you should read the foundational works of postmodernist intellectuals. Most people aren't interested in understanding an opposing view, they just want to be right, and that leads to mental errors. If you look, then you can find plenty of people who are interested in ideas.

Oliver,
You may be one of the exceptions, but the many liberals I've tried to discuss with, regularly ignore facts or logic I present. I really don't consider myself conservative or liberal- I just try to think and figure out what's true based on facts and what seems best of possibilities.

Liberalism began well - as a break from extreme puritism - but now it's going too far.
It's becoming like a religion, as Ann Coulter explained (in link below). Liberalism demands no religion in schools, yet they indoctrinate school children with liberal ideologies, which are faith-based, ignoring inconvenient facts.

With liberalism, beliefs are contradictory & or full of double standards. Ie: Contrary to overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is more nurture than nature, liberals try to preach that homosexuals are born with homosexual preferences and cannot change. Yet, they claim that pedophiles are not born that way and can change.

Most concerning is that liberalism does not trust the American people, so they have often dismissed the voting and other democratic means, in favor of forcing their way through the courts... IE: Americans overwhelmingly voted against homosexual marriage, yet it was ignored and given to the supreme court, despite justices pointing out marriage is NOT a constitutional issue & this not in their jurisdiction).

Godless: Church of Liberalism
https://youtu.be/4hjcsP1Qoh0

Milo yiannopoulos: Explains the unscientific, manipulative way homosexuality has been portrayed, & why he would rather not be gay.
https://youtu.be/07HXaBNgo00

[oliver_denom]

Liberalism began well - as a break from extreme puritism - but now it's going too far.
It's becoming like a religion, as Ann Coulter explained (in link below). Liberalism demands no religion in schools, yet they indoctrinate school children with liberal ideologies, which are faith-based, ignoring inconvenient facts.

I don't think this is a fair representation or description of modern American liberalism. You'll have to excuse my definition making because the term "liberal" means one thing to the left, another to the right, and yet another in academia. My understanding of the word is tied to the Declaration of Independence which claims that all people have an inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", looking back on a time where all Americans supporting Democracy and the rights guaranteed in the constitution would all call themselves liberals as opposed to monarchists. Ideas about what these values look like and how they are secured may differ, but they are baked into what it means to be an American regardless of party. We're more a like than different.

Most liberals believe in God and are quite religious. Where we may differ, is in the belief that government should be prohibited from establishing a state religion, as described in the first amendment. There are some politicians and factions who have argued that the United States should establish Christianity as its official religion and that specifically Christian prayers and theology should be taught in the schools. Some in the Democratic party agree with this view, but they are a minority. Most of us believe that religion is a private matter, and like the drafters of the first amendment, believe that harm is done both to the state and to religion when the two combine. One can believe in a secular education system and still hold very strong religious beliefs. Instead of promoting atheism, what we're promoting is the idea that government should be neutral ground for all citizens no matter what they do or don't believe. I think this is a consistent view. What I find contradictory is the idea that Christian influences be allowed in school while other religions are banned. I don't see justification for that in our traditions or laws.

I think we all agree with one another that indoctrination is bad. Most liberals that I know believe in teaching kids how to think, not what to think.

With liberalism, beliefs are contradictory & or full of double standards. Ie: Contrary to overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is more nurture than nature, liberals try to preach that homosexuals are born with homosexual preferences and cannot change. Yet, they claim that pedophiles are not born that way and can change.

I think you'll find that the evidence is not overwhelming showing nature over nurture, that in fact, there is significant evidence showing there is a biological basis for homosexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_a ... rientation

Whether or not sexual orientation can be changed is a different question from whether or not it has roots in biology. One could argue that there is a biological root, but that a person could nevertheless effect a change. However, the studies on conversion therapy have turned strongly against this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

The question of pedophilia, or linking that to homosexuality is another question all together. There may be a biological cause for pedophilia, but the reason no liberal would ever support its legalization is because the victims of pedophiles lack the ability to consent to sex. There's no comparison between consenting adults having sex, and an adult having sex with a child. It's a false equivalency.

Most concerning is that liberalism does not trust the American people, so they have often dismissed the voting and other democratic means, in favor of forcing their way through the courts... IE: Americans overwhelmingly voted against homosexual marriage, yet it was ignored and given to the supreme court, despite justices pointing out marriage is NOT a constitutional issue & this not in their jurisdiction).

This is not so much a critique of liberalism as it is of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court is given the power to determine the constitutionality of our laws. If the people of the United States wanted to reverse a court decision, then there are mechanisms within the constitution to make that happen. What's happened instead is that acceptance of gay marriage within the United States has continued to climb, making it highly unlikely that voters would even want this to happen. http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/chan ... -marriage/

[dogbite]

IE: Americans overwhelmingly voted against homosexual marriage, yet it was ignored and given to the supreme court, despite justices pointing out marriage is NOT a constitutional issue & this not in their jurisdiction).

The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution puts it squarely in their jurisdiction especially when some states say they will not recognize marriages from other states. That's what the Full Faith and Credit clause requires of the individual states in recognizing contracts from other states.

That's why heterosexual marriages in one state are valid in all other states. Same with divorce granted in a state other than where the marriage was entered.

[Wonderment]

With liberalism, beliefs are contradictory & or full of double standards. Ie: Contrary to overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is more nurture than nature, liberals try to preach that homosexuals are born with homosexual preferences and cannot change. Yet, they claim that pedophiles are not born that way and can change.

It doesn't appear that people make a choice to be homosexual or heterosexual through "nurture." Other aspects of gender ( which is a social construct) can be affected by nurture, but the most up to date evidence shows that males and females do not elect their orientation. -- Wndr.

[Newme]

Thanks for your replies.

I also believe strongly that all are "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights - and these are life liberty & the pursuit of happiness." Which is why I don't believe in discriminating based on age and killing children (developing human) through abortion.
How anybody could want to kill these children - especially when these children can feel their bodies being ripped apart through abortion - is beyond me.

Overwhelming evidence has been discovered that babies are NOT born with particular sexual preferences.
Just looking at human development - babies' brains are only 1/4 developed at birth, so that they can adapt to environmental stimuli, again indicating that so much is learned or environmentally influenced.
I trust that if you're interested in actual science, you'll research it thoroughly.

"Therapists who treat men and women struggling with same-sex attractions say that there are several consistent factors that contribute to the emergence of homosexuality: gender confusion in childhood, a failure to internalize maleness, and sexual abuse by a same-sex predator. Dr. Gregory Dickson, whose doctoral thesis is on the relationship between a mother and son in the development of homosexuality, found that 49% of the homosexuals he surveyed said they had been molested, compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals. Other research confirms what therapists have known for decades: Homosexuals are made, not born. And they are frequently “made” by older men who molest them as youngsters.

Counselor Dr. Robert Hicks, author of The Masculine Journey has some sobering thoughts on the real origins of homosexual attractions: “…In counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent development in the sexual arena. More often than not I have found stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally) fathers; stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes find these men have been early exposure to pornography….” It is worth repeating: Homosexuals are made, not born."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts

Maybe you want to APPEAR "loving" by blindly accepting homosexuality, but if you genuinely cared about homosexuals, you wouldn't be so quick to paint it with rainbows...

According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), "Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States." https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm

According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those with homosexual practices are many times more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals.... "Gay and bisexual men were the only group that did not experience an overall decline in annual HIV infections from 2008 to 2014." https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/20 ... lease.html

Even when there are not other health concerns, anal sex has risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection.

Also According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those who engage in homosexual practices are more likely to have mental illness. Research also has found that, compared to other men, MSM are at increased risk of: Major depression during adolescence and adulthood; Bipolar disorder; and Generalized anxiety disorder during adolescence and adulthood. MSM are also at greater risk for other health threats that often occur in conjunction with mental health problems (i.e., co-morbidities). These include greater use of illegal drugs and a greater risk for suicide.

And it is fact that marriage is not a supreme court/constitutional issue.
It was just the lefts way of tyrannically imposing their will against the will of the voters.

[dogbite]

And it is fact that marriage is not a supreme court/constitutional issue.
It was just the lefts way of tyrannically imposing their will against the will of the voters.

You've made the claim twice but have offered no support.

You'll also need to show Loving v Virginia to be similarly flawed.

[Wonderment]

So, let's use a post-modern approach and take a look at Dr. Robert Hicks' book "The Masculine Journey", as well as the Supreme Court's decision on Obergefell v. Hodges. Let's deconstruct the rationale behind the arguments and why those arguments are being used.

Many conservative churches, including the LDS church officials, the Roman Catholic church officials, and evangelical fundamentalist church officials, see gay people as "the other". There's a right way to be sexually oriented; i.e., towards the opposite sex, and there's a wrong way ( same sex). This is why the church ( including you) describe gay people as "struggling" with same-sex attraction. In the view of conservative churches, the will of God is that a man always marry a women, and therefore, that is the natural order of things "because God said so." Conservative church members will almost always quote the Old Testament book of Leviticus as having the last work on God's proscription against same sex marriage.

Dr. Robert Hicks' book, "The Masculine Journey", published 20 years ago, was published in conjunction with The Promise Keepers, an evangelical fundamentalist men's organization founded by Colorado football coach Bill McCartney. If I recall correctly, Promise Keepers funded much of the publishing of that book, and it reflects the fundamentalist outlook on gender and sexual attraction. The Bible dictates the "correct" sexual orientation, and anyone who doesn't fall in line with that is seen as the "4 D's" - diseased, demented, dirty, and deceived. ( See your description of gay people above, written with a tone of horror and loathing that even the most casual reader can discern.

[Wonderment]

The Supreme Court decision from 2015 in the Obergefell v. Hodges case took a more secular approach to same-sex marriage. SCOTUS looked at whether they had the right to overturn state laws against same-sex marriage, which were put in place by the voters of that state. The more conservative members saw the concept of same sex marriage as a state's rights issue - i.e., the federal government could not overturn what the voters had decided. However, the precedent has been set that voters cannot decide to deny a group of people their 14th Amendment due process rights simply because they disagree with that group. A state cannot deny due process or equal rights to a group because the state's voters decide against it. That's one of the reasons that Jim Crow laws mandating racial segregation were overturned in the south during the 1960's and 1970's.

That's what happened in California during Prop. 8 in 2008. Funded in large part by the LDS church and other conservative churches, the voters decided to overturn same sex marriage rights, thus disbanding a large number of marriages and questioning the status of the children of gay couples into question. That's why Prop. 8 was overturned.

What post-modernism does is seek to analyze the motivation behind an act or a law, and how that motivation determines how a group of people are perceived. That's known as "deconstruction", and that's only one of the purposes of post-modernism. Religious conservatives don't like it, of course, because it takes Biblical beliefs held for thousands of years and looks at them in context and application. It puts them under fairly strong scrutiny.

[dogbite]

Overwhelming evidence has been discovered that babies are NOT born with particular sexual preferences.
Just looking at human development - babies' brains are only 1/4 developed at birth, so that they can adapt to environmental stimuli, again indicating that so much is learned or environmentally influenced.
I trust that if you're interested in actual science, you'll research it thoroughly.

"Therapists who treat men and women struggling with same-sex attractions say that there are several consistent factors that contribute to the emergence of homosexuality: gender confusion in childhood, a failure to internalize maleness, and sexual abuse by a same-sex predator. Dr. Gregory Dickson, whose doctoral thesis is on the relationship between a mother and son in the development of homosexuality, found that 49% of the homosexuals he surveyed said they had been molested, compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals. Other research confirms what therapists have known for decades: Homosexuals are made, not born. And they are frequently “made” by older men who molest them as youngsters.

Counselor Dr. Robert Hicks, author of The Masculine Journey has some sobering thoughts on the real origins of homosexual attractions: “…In counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent development in the sexual arena. More often than not I have found stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally) fathers; stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes find these men have been early exposure to pornography….” It is worth repeating: Homosexuals are made, not born."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts

Maybe you want to APPEAR "loving" by blindly accepting homosexuality, but if you genuinely cared about homosexuals, you wouldn't be so quick to paint it with rainbows...

According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), "Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States." https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm

According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those with homosexual practices are many times more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals.... "Gay and bisexual men were the only group that did not experience an overall decline in annual HIV infections from 2008 to 2014." https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/20 ... lease.html

Even when there are not other health concerns, anal sex has risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection.

Also According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those who engage in homosexual practices are more likely to have mental illness. Research also has found that, compared to other men, MSM are at increased risk of: Major depression during adolescence and adulthood; Bipolar disorder; and Generalized anxiety disorder during adolescence and adulthood. MSM are also at greater risk for other health threats that often occur in conjunction with mental health problems (i.e., co-morbidities). These include greater use of illegal drugs and a greater risk for suicide.

None of which has anything to do with who people are attracted to or the sex they find fulfilling.

[LaMachina]

Uh oh...this is happening again??

I won't add much but will just make a couple observations and comments (mine in red):

Current Liberalism/Postmodernism does not demonstrate critical thinking - more like the opposite.
It regularly entertains these logical fallacies:

Emotional reasoning (& related: argumentum ad misericordiam - using pity as a basis of arguing)
- Newme says = Maybe you want to APPEAR "loving" by blindly accepting homosexuality, but if you genuinely cared about homosexuals, you wouldn't be so quick to paint it with rainbows...
Or in other words If I really loved the gays I'd stop enabling the poor bastards.

Polarized/All-or-Nothing thinking/False Dichotomy - Newme says = Contrary to overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is more nurture than nature, liberals try to preach that homosexuals are born with homosexual preferences and cannot change. Yet, they claim that pedophiles are not born that way and can change.
I have never once heard anyone claim pedophiles can change but gays cannot...I'd love a solid reference of a person who carries any weight saying anything like this. Claiming overwhelming evidence for nurture is taking a pretty polarizing position especially considering science has decidedly determined that it is NOT overwhelmingly nurture unless you consider the womb environment to be nurture? I'd love to see the studies of the Dr's quoted briefly on that very reputable website but I wasn't able to find much...probably a liberal conspiracy.

Red Hering - changing the subject when they don't have a rebuttal
- This thread could be a stellar example (I thought you were discussing post-modernism, not abortion and gay marriage again?) but I could link to other threads if needed.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc & Jumping to conclusions - Newme says = Why is it that many here were strong conservatives and then suddenly they're liberal? and I understand faith crisis change perspectives, but for me at least, I haven't tossed out everything I previously believed.
Hey, you don't know me!

Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to Popularity) - Newme says = Most concerning is that liberalism does not trust the American people, so they have often dismissed the voting and other democratic means, in favor of forcing their way through the courts... IE: Americans overwhelmingly voted against homosexual marriage, yet it was ignored and given to the supreme court
For the sake of argument let's say this is true (although I believe it's been pointed out in other threads that claiming Americans were overwhelmingly against gay marriage is not true) if the majority of Americans vote to infringe on the rights of others does that make it right?

And one more thing

With liberalism, beliefs are contradictory & or full of double standards.

I also believe strongly that all are "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights - and these are life liberty & the pursuit of happiness."

And it is fact that marriage is not a supreme court/constitutional issue.
It was just the lefts way of tyrannically imposing their will against the will of the voters.

So, I believe all are granted the freedom to pursue happiness unless the popular vote determines they shouldn't be able to in a situation that affects me in no way whatsoever other than possibly having a conversation with my child where I have to explain sometimes boys and boys or girls and girls love each other? Makes perfect sense! And liberals are the ones full of double standards!

I'd swear you were trolling if you didn't come across as so damn sincere!

[dogbite]

Overwhelming evidence has been discovered that babies are NOT born with particular sexual preferences.
Just looking at human development - babies' brains are only 1/4 developed at birth, so that they can adapt to environmental stimuli, again indicating that so much is learned or environmentally influenced.
I trust that if you're interested in actual science, you'll research it thoroughly.

The first sentence is junk science. While the source material may have been from a quality study, the particular interpretation you used or sourced or heard rewrote the conclusion for their own agenda.

Since we lack telepathy, the opening statement is baseless. Science cannot know any such thing. If the study was a quality work then the conclusion would say something along the lines of babies do not exhibit sexual preference. This is a very different statement than to say they have no sexual preference. These types of studies are usually done by showing babies pictures of men and women and interpreting which ones they look at to mean certain things. Indeed it would be a stretch to say that indicates sexual preference instead of perhaps sustenance preference.

However once people with a particular agenda start using these studies they'll reword them slightly to fit their agenda. There are similar wording tweaks throughout the rest of your argument as well. Absolutist terms used where it is not warranted or supportable is a "tell" of manipulated science.

[Newme]

Evidence shows that the development of homosexual practices are more linked to environmental influences than to biology. Science does not support the claim that homosexuality is genetic.. Even Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend

"1. No research has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals & homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior. 2. In 2 large studies conducted... Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences. 3. Older homosexuals often approach the young 4. Early homosexual experiences influence adult patters of behavior 5. Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - esp. religious convictions 6. Many change their sexual preferences 7. There are many ex-homosexuals" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts

Milo Yiannopoulos explains how homosexuals wanted to normalize homosexuality so they pretended one was born that way - despite research that suggests it's more nurture than nature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgoyQevEhhQ

Overwhelming evidence has been discovered that babies are NOT born with particular sexual preferences.
Just looking at human development - babies' brains are only 1/4 developed at birth, so that they can adapt to environmental stimuli, again indicating that so much is learned or environmentally influenced.
I trust that if you're interested in actual science, you'll research it thoroughly.

The first sentence is junk science. While the source material may have been from a quality study, the particular interpretation you used or sourced or heard rewrote the conclusion for their own agenda.

You're calling human development knowledge "junk science"? Human development states that babies' brains are only 25% developed at birth - so they can better adapt to environmental influences. This is very basic knowledge of how we as human beings, grow. It's not a controversial study - it's FACT. You're inability to grasp that fact is revealing. And what baby do you know, is sexually active? Maybe only babies who are sexually abused - and thus it's not their sexual preferences but whoever's abusing them. What kind of dysfunctional person would think that babies are born with explicit sexual desires?

Your lack of logical reasoning is a good example of the problems of post-modernism - the lack of tolerance of science, logic and facts, by changing what is considered science. Another example is when people suggest that men are not really physiologically different from women, when not only medical books but also common knowledge indicates there are definitely differences. Notice in this interview the peer pressure most on this panel are falling for - even when it contradicts known facts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4 And note how this man cannot handle a simple question so he instead threatens to "send him home in an ambulence." And seeing this - the rest of them are so mesmorized by herd-mentality, that they support this man threatening violence. Horrifying insanity of post-liberalism. Scary that so many people go along with lies because everyone's doing it - and they get mob-mentality. I've seen it too often. I got kicked off the old NOM because I quoted a man who was threatening me via pm - and I posted his threats, to try to make the harassing stop. He didn't like what I said about homosexuality and let his emotional reasoning overrule. He was secretly threatening to hurt me. In order to make it less secret & more open, I posted his pms on the forum and it stopped, but I, not he, got kicked off the forum because of it. I've gotten called names and put down, simply for stating facts some don't like. I see this insanity not just for being illogical, but also dangerous.

Here, Jordan Peterson explains that, to be fair, he was speaking in general terms - to explain the harmful movement - and that the limiting speech, anti-factual-discourse and other dysfunctionalities of Postmodernism are dangerous yet are infiltrating our society with problematic consequences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AjoeBFW1vw

[dogbite]

Evidence shows that the development of homosexual practices are more linked to environmental influences than to biology. Science does not support the claim that homosexuality is genetic.. Even Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend

"1. No research has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals & homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior. 2. In 2 large studies conducted... Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences. 3. Older homosexuals often approach the young 4. Early homosexual experiences influence adult patters of behavior 5. Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - esp. religious convictions 6. Many change their sexual preferences 7. There are many ex-homosexuals" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts

1 is another bogus claim. Look at the part about genetic difference caused by behavior. This is a Lamarckian view of genetics that is unsupported for the context. Indeed, this would contradict your arguments in points 6 and 7. If these genetic changes were caused by homosexual acts and then became the code dictating all, then the events in 6 and 7 would not happen. I would also like to see a source to see what was actually claimed.

2, I want to see the source. Further, the self view of an individual is no evidence of how they ended up there. They have no ability to look into their genes and all other factors and see what all influenced their choices. What one believes is not evidence of cause. It's interesting to see the psychology, but the claim is not proof of cause.

3. cherry pick. Older heterosexuals behave the same way. Just look at advertising. The cultural ideal of beauty is biased towards the young. Indeed, this would bias against homosexuality by sheer volume of exposure and pressure.

4, again not exclusive to homosexuals nor itself conclusive. That one has early homosexual or heterosexual experiences is more indicative of preference itself, not causing the behavior. However, there is certainly a feedback loop. Still, more people end up identifying as straight in spite of homosexual experimentation in their youth. So again, this would tend to support heterosexuality as the outcome of these events.

5. certainly, but this is also about moral disgust, and in and out groups. It's not exclusive to homosexuality and indeed would bias towards heterosexuality. Homosexuality is not a rewarded behavior or choice in our culture. So why would anyone choose it?

6, yes sexuality is fluid over time. But this doesn't invalidate ones earlier preferences or prove superiority/primacy of later preferences.

7. sampling/reporting bias. Similarly, there are people who identify as straight early who later choose a homosexual partner. This is not evidence against an first preference early on.

Milo Yiannopoulos explains how homosexuals wanted to normalize homosexuality so they pretended one was born that way - despite research that suggests it's more nurture than nature:

Milo has no training, education or credential to quote as an authority. He is a shock journalist. His personal preferences cannot be extrapolated to apply generally to the population.

You're calling human development knowledge "junk science"? Human development states that babies' brains are only 25% developed at birth - so they can better adapt to environmental influences. This is very basic knowledge of how we as human beings, grow. It's not a controversial study - it's FACT. You're inability to grasp that fact is revealing. And what baby do you know, is sexually active? Maybe only babies who are sexually abused - and thus it's not their sexual preferences but whoever's abusing them. What kind of dysfunctional person would think that babies are born with explicit sexual desires?

Strawman. Wasn't my point at all. I don't claim that infant brains are fully developed. I don't claim anything about their desires and preferences. I claim we have no way to know what they have at this point. Science isn't sufficient to the task. You're claiming they have a specific state.